Talk:BIGG
Is this bigger than meameamealokkapoowa oompa? if yes, i hope someone else make evan bigga. Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 10:03, May 21, 2013 (UTC) y, by him but not of all... Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 10:26, May 21, 2013 (UTC) :Really? Do you really get how &'s, legiattic arrays and L-arrays in BEAF work? hyp$hyp?cos&cos (talk) 03:01, November 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Nah, that's just him disliking hyperfactorial array notation. (See also this and this.) However, if the recent analysis of BEAF is correct, then maybe he is right after all! -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 15:06, November 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Hyp cos, he doesn't even get how linear arrays in BEAF work in full. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 16:51, November 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Do we really understand how L-arrays et al in BEAF work? It seems that Bowers didn't give enough detail to pin down precisely what he meant for anything beyond Extended Array Notation. I don't think he says anything that suggests that BEAF is based on the catching function. Deedlit11 (talk) 08:44, November 16, 2013 (UTC) :::Well, let's be honest, he also doesn't say anything suggesting it doesn't work that way. He gives us only some definitions which we can interpret in uncountably many ways. Only way to see who is more right is to make awfully and boringly long and detailed comparisons. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:36, November 16, 2013 (UTC) :::We can restrict the number of ways in we admit that replacing all X's in the structure A to n's and solving the expression gives the same number of entries in the A & n. Bowers mentioned that X^^^X & 3 (triakulus) has 3^^^3 entries, {X,X,100} & 10 has {10,10,100} entries, etc. That was the main clue for me. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 16:15, November 16, 2013 (UTC) I coined BIGGG, but it is not confirmed yet. Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 06:06, May 28, 2013 (UTC) ‽ is INTERROBANG. Jiawhien (talk) 12:38, June 4, 2013 (UTC) Order type Any guesses about order type of "n?" (the function that defines BIGG)? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 17:00, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :It should be at least the Large Veblen Ordinal, I don't know about after that. Dr. Ceasium believes it is larger than the TFB ordinal, but I'm doubtful. Deedlit11 (talk) 23:29, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :I'm a bit more optimistic; I believe that ( and ] actually reach LVO alone. (Although it's possible that the definition's changed since then.) :On the page, a definition isn't actually explicitly given for how ⁅ ⁆ brackets work. So, technically, I guess this is only about 10x as defined as legion arrays not well-defined. Still, I'd say it's far greater than f_{\psi(\Omega_\Omega)}(197) . (The ordinal is probably much higher (the <> alone could - theoretically - reach \psi(\chi(M^M)) ), but the definition's incomplete, so...) :Has anyone done a proper analysis on the notation yet? ~εmli 00:08, January 6, 2016 (UTC) ::It looks like his Extended Brackets work similarly to how the Buchholz Hydra works, so it looks like _k brackets should reach about \psi_0(\Omega_k) . Replacing k with nested arrays should allow the notation to reach \psi_0 (\Omega_\Omega) ; however, in their notations Wythagoras and Hyp Cos define it so that there are multiple ways to nest, allowing their notations to reach \psi_0 (\psi_I(0)) at this point. My guess is that Hollom was not using this method, but rather used ⁅n⁅ to accomplish the same nesting. So that would mean that 1<200>2 ⁅200⁅ 1 would be at approximately \psi_0 (\Omega_{\Omega_{\Omega_\cdots}}) with about 200 \Omega 's. ::Note that Hollom has abandoned this version of his notation; on his web page he has gone to a simpler version he calls "Factorial Array Notation", and was developing something he calls "Extended Factorial Array Notation" that, if his analysis is correct, appears to beat HAN by a considerable margin. Deedlit11 (talk) 00:50, January 6, 2016 (UTC) Size I think that Big Boowa < Bukuwaha < BIGG < Goshomity < Good Goshomity < meameamealokkapoowa < meameamealokkapoowa arrowa < meameamealokkapoowa oompa < loader's number < rayo's number < Fish number 7 < BIG FOOT Am I right? Antares.I.G.Harrison (talk) 13:18, February 7, 2015 (UTC) :Yes and no. Because BEAF can be defined in multiple ways, we have no idea where BIGG falls. But loader's number < rayo's number < Fish number 7 < BIG FOOT is right, and meameamealokkapoowa oompa < loader's number is true for any reasonable interpretation of meameamealokkapoowa oompa. Using an other analysis, the BIGG falls above all Bowers' numbers but below Loader's number. Wythagoras (talk) 13:34, February 7, 2015 (UTC) :LittlePeng9 said that the community decided that BEAF wasn't well-defined at legiattic arrays and beyond. That means that BIGG is the biggest number right before Loader's Number Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 07:50, June 18, 2015 (UTC) :Sorry, I'm late, but are you right? "wasn't well-defined at legiattic arrays and beyond", not "tetrational"? I believe you're right, but I need one independent piece of evidence. If no, there will be a discrepancy: in the article of BEAF - it is defined only below tetrational arrays, there - it is defined below legiattic arrays. Tetramur (talk) 14:59, January 3, 2020 (UTC)